Sunday, January 22, 2017

JAN 22, 2017 LENR: TECHNOLOGY OR NOT TECHNOLOGY, THIS IS THE QUESTION.

MOTTOThe author and I have stated The reverse is also true, in partindependently "Our world is the most interesting of all possible worlds"I have promised him that LENR will become a technology. It was not in his lifetimeHow about my lifetime? Andrea Rossi says he has a real LENR technology that worked well for a year but his licensees started to say he has nothing- sfter thatyear when Rossi started a trial for the money they owe him and have not paid-- if the plant has worked as it was ERVised in 3 (4) reports.The litigation is in full development now.Technology or not technology, this is the question!?DAILY NOTES

a) Ed Storms accuses me that I am a pessimistWell Peter, your pessimism seems to be getting worse. First you thought that only Ni-H was useful to study, with the Pd-D system being a lesser phenomenon having no usefulness. Now you seem to think that no form of LENR can be understood well enough for it to be applied. Apparently, you think we all are wasting our time if the goal is a practical energy source. I think you will grant that interesting behavior is happening, but you seem to think the behavior will never be useful. Do I understand you correctly?

In my case, I believe LENR will be the energy of the future, it will save mankind from the ravages of carbon-based and uranium-based fuels, and it will allow the terriforming and occupation of Mars. In addition, the process will reveal new and important understanding of how nuclei can interact. This information will make transmutation possible as the Alchemists had claimed long ago was possible. Nevertheless, right now mankind has to get through some tough times and conventional science has to take an interest. Meanwhile, exploring LENR is a way to have fun without needing much money. We can even gloat about hot fusion needing billions of dollars to produce very little success while we use much less money and have growing success. It is reassuring to know that the future belongs to LENR.

My answer to Ed

Re. what I think, you are in error sorry. I remarked we think very differently starting with what we imagine about Mother Nature. Now I definitely have not said that only NiH is worth of study- NiH is only a pioneer of a great broad category of transition metal-hydrogen deep interactions.

"Now you seem to think that no form of LENR can be understood well enough for it to be applied." How have you arrived to this conclusion about my thinking?On the contrary, I think there are good, useful, kinds of LENR that can be converted in technologies and almost simultaneously understood. We have not yet discussed about the Rossi technology applied in the 1MW plant.Reason: I wanted to focus the discussion about what it actually is- the lack/unbearable slowness of progress very specifically in the cradle system, the specific INCOMPLETENESS of the PdD electrolytic cell/process.Further, I think there has already started the process of understating useful LENR- an active understanding of what must be done with the help of engineering and technology- making hydrogen active, making metal (Ni- first) receptive, creating actionable parameters- making the process of NAE genesis dynamic and sustained, using combination of stimuli (here is still a secret part) thus obtaining LENR+ of the technological sort i.e. multiplicative not additive. You place emphasis only on the first of LENR+ 6 Pillars:Difficulty, Diversity, Difference, Dynamicity, Deep-change, Discovery- you say LENR takes place in NAE (i called them active sites) and NAE are very difficult to be created. Here is a kind of paradox- the Storms kind of NAE have a simple structure- nanovoids of standard dimension and in principle they could be created at very high density by smart fracturing of palladium perhaps by 3D printing (?)If we are wasting time with PdD classic system? This is more a rhetoric question- it is firmly established that the Siren or Lorelei song of PdD is still irresistible. But the real question is what usable knowledge can it generate? Let's watch the issue together as long we have time here downstairs.

The opinion of Russ George

Peter, In answer to Ed's comment to you, "We are not at the technology stage yet," such is spoken from his perspective as one of the many who have anointed themselves as the "royal we". HE IS SIMPLY WRONG! He speaks accurately for that 'almost picayune' cabal which if anything over the past nearly 30 years has proven that they are most certainly NOT at the technology stage. They remain there with determination as they refuse and refute all interlopers to their rarified cabal even while feigning not to do so.

There are two or three cold fusion modalities that are so near to the technology stage that such technology could arrive in a year or two with ordinary technology development funding. The making of 'cold fusion' into a pariah science has been done with the intent to prevent any such ordinary development funding. The demands of the 'cold fusion' 'lenr' followers that the miracle of cold fusion be accompanied by a second miracle of being able to be converted to technology for next to nothing and in full public view is of course symptomatic of those who would have us believe in angels not science and technology. The rule that governs cold fusion technology is "Good, Fast, or Cheap - choose any two!" Alas nothing but good can ever succeed which means the latter two choices reveal the path(s).

This is clearly why the likes of Mills, Rossi, and perhaps others have chosen to stay out of the cabals zone of poisonous influence. Doing so they knowingly get on with their work taking the slings and arrows that are thrust upon them. Like all pioneers, cold fusion pioneers find more arrows in their backs than in their fronts. It is those who reside in apparent friendly territory to their rear that they suffer most from. The malicious idiots like Huizenga and Park and Morrison and their ilk of whom we all know their names are also effective in slowing progress to protect their dogma but it is easier to become psychologically immune to the arrows of such malevolent idiots than it is the arrows of "friends."

What seems most likely from my perspective of having spent nearly 30 years at the experimental technology development bench is that many of us are very near deliverable mass technology. Some may be well advanced over others but the energy marketplace on this blue planet is very very large and most assuredly 'a rising tide will lift all boats.'

Nothing feels better than being certain, but science has taught us over the years that certainty is largely an illusion. In science, we don’t "believe" in things, or claim to know the absolute truth. Something is either likely or unlikely, and we quantify how likely or unlikely. That is perhaps the greatest gift that science can give.

Pasteur once said, “Fortune favors the prepared mind.” Incorporating uncertainties prepares us to make more informed decisions about the future. This does not obviate our ability to draw rational and quantitatively reliable conclusions on which to base our actions—especially when our health and security may depend on them.

Jared DiamondCOMMON SENSEhttps://www.edge.org/response-detail/27111You’re much more likely to hear “common sense” invoked as a concept at a cocktail party than at a scientific discussion. In fact, common sense should be invoked more often in scientific discussions, where it is sometimes deficient and scorned. Scientists may string out a detailed argument that reaches an implausible conclusion contradicting common sense. But many other scientists nevertheless accept the implausible conclusion, because they get caught up in the details of the argument.As Mr. Bridgess told us plane geometry students, “Use common sense, and don’t be seduced by the details. Eventually, someone will discover the errors in those details.” That advice is as true in modern science as it is in plane geometry.

Gordon KaneSPONTANEOUS SYMMETRY BREAKINGhttps://www.edge.org/response-detail/27012Spontaneous symmetry breaking is widespread and fundamental in physics and science. The most famous occurrence is that it is the mechanism responsible for the importance of Higgs physics, the reason quarks and electrons are allowed to have mass, and for the vacuum of our universe not being nothing. The notion is widespread in condensed matter physics, and indeed was first understood there. But it is much broader, potentially leading to confusion between theories and solutions in many areas.

In many fields we make theories to describe and explain phenomena. But the behavior of systems is described by the solutions to the theories, not by the theories alone. We saw here that trying to deduce the properties of the solutions, and the behavior of phenomena in sciences and social sciences, and the world in general from the form of the theory can be completely misleading. Another way to view the situation is the reverse perspective: the properties of the theory (such as its symmetries) may be hidden when we only observe the non-symmetric solutions. If it’s described by equations it’s easy to see this, but it’s true much more generally. These ideas should be much better known. DAILY NEWS

Hi Andrea,I have a question: if you will win in Court, will you lose the ip on e-cat?

Best regardsAlessandro CoppiAndrea RossiJanuary 22, 2017 at 8:21 AM

Alessandro Coppi:No: the IP has always been of Leonardo Corporation. IH was a licensee.Warm Regards,A.R.

Steven N. Karels (about a public demonstration)

January 22, 2017 at 7:25 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

Good luck on the planning, implementation of the Demonstration. It takes a lot of work to make a smooth, predictable public demonstration. Some thoughts and things to consider for such a demonstration:

a. Repeatability: During my 48 years as an engineer, when I presented a radical new idea or product to Management or to a customer, I would practice run the complete demonstration around 10 times, to refine it, detect any unusual results, and to make sure the demonstration “behaved” properly.b. Numerosity: I understand you have up to three QuarkX units. If so, a decision needs to be made how many do you simultaneously run for the demonstration? More than one adds validity to the demonstration, but then the results will likely be different so you will need to address the differences. If the results are exactly the same, that may decrease the audience’s perception of validity.c. Accuracy: All input, output and measurements must be calibrated. The calibration data must be made available and preformed in a manner that is simple, yet highly accurate. Since you are proposing a water-based demonstration (heating water without a phase transition), you will need to calibrate the electrical input measurement system, the temperature measurement devices (each one), the water flow instrumentation, and any other measurement devices I may have failed to mention.d. Enclosure: The experiment should be a closed system that is visible so the viewers can see that no hidden (cheats) are in use. Plus no external energy transfer devices are affecting the experiment.e. Dummy or Unfueled system: You need to decide if a simultaneous “dummy” or unfueled unit is run under the same conditions to demonstrate the difference. The positives are that it presents a clearer image of the excess energy that actual unit is producing. The downsides are more likelihood of errors and unforeseen differences that need to be explained.f. Environment: The demonstration area needs to be large, clean, with chairs for the attendees, a single source of input power (an extension cord running from the wall, etc. Attendees should be able to walk around the demonstration unit. It should not have the “feel” of a laboratory experiment or a garage project.g. Documentation: professional quality handouts should be available in sufficient quantities for more than the number of attendees. USB drives should be provided for the calibration and other pre-demonstration tests that will be released.h. Legal: Your lawyers need to review all documents and statements for public release.i. Oral presentation: Prepared and practiced many, many times so the presentation is viewed as professional and may be clearly understood. This takes a lot of time and practice. Practice in front of an actual audience, preferably trusted outsiders who can critically advise as to what is not working in the presentation.j. Personnel Depth: Have an alternative presenter prepared in case the primary presenter becomes sick or not available.k. Attendees: Invite them early with a fixed date for the demonstration. Try not to “slip” the date. Invite persons of importance to gain credibility for the demonstration. Trained and well-recognized industry leaders (e.g., SRI, professors involved with LENR). Request RSVP. Have some small, but adequate meal or food and drink (non-alcoholic), especially if the length of the demonstration is over 30 minutes.l. Duration: Consider how long a demonstration is appropriate. 8 hours is way too long for the attendees to observe. A few minutes is not credible. Be long enough to capture the effect without being boring.m. Automation: If possible, automate the demonstration to smoothly run the demonstration. Consider multiple startups, operation and shutdowns if possible, although it adds more risk that something unusual will occur. The operation time length should be of sufficient duration to demonstrate the effect.n. COP Selection: Don’t run the demonstration at an unusually high COP (i.e. 200) or too low a COP (e.g. 2). Choose some target value that clearly demonstrates excess energy even assuming worst case calibration errors but ‘feels” adequate. I would suggest a COP range of 5 to 20.o. Water: Consider using a clear water container using store-bought distilled water that you periodically pour into the container to keep the supply of water both visible and observable. Using tap water, critics might suggest you used something another fluid and dispute the results. Allow a random participant to taste the water and to pour it into the source tank. On the input and output side, weigh and record the water weights as a secondary check on the flow rate measurements, as you did in the 2010 demonstration.

A successful public demonstration takes a lot of work and time (months to properly prepare) but will be invaluable. Do all that you can do to quash the inevitable critics.

My thoughts. Good luck on a successful demonstration. You get one chance to make a good first impression.Translate

4 comments:

Ed says "We are not at the technology stage yet," Then Russ replies with "There are two or three cold fusion modalities that are so near to the technology stage that such technology could arrive in a year or two with ordinary technology development funding."

Seems to me that Russ is confirming Ed's statement. When you say "could arrive" with conditions attached, that is the very essence of the word "yet".

Russ is reacting as if Ed had said that the technology is 5 years away or something to that effect, but what Ed said is the technology is not here now. Hard to disagree with that.

I really do hope Mr Rossi takes notice of the suggestions of Steven N. Karels.Do I think he will? Probably not.Apparently there were numerous good suggestions made prior to Rossi's early demonstrations, from people who knew about such matters but apparently Mr Rossi thought they were unnecessary. I suppose it will be the same again.It would be nice to be surprised for once.

Dermessence has most essential nutrients that this formula has and that act directly and indirectly in combating again signs from the inside out. for more information please visit http://www.newfitnessbooster.com/dermessence/